Barack Did Great, McCain Okay But Angry

I thought Barack was terrific -- strong, clear, knowledgeable. I thought McCain, to be fair, showed some of his knowledge in a good way. But he's too old, he's from the 20th century, the country doesn't need him now.

Plus I thought in some ways McCain lost the debate on his face, the way his face turned red and an uncomfortable smile came on him that seemed to cover a lot of anger. This happened many times in the debate; the first one may have been when Barack said strongly but without nastiness that McCain couldn't pretend to be disconnected from the catastrophic economy or the enormous deficits when he had voted 90% of the time with Bush and had voted for every Bush budget. Forced to be quiet while Barack went through his pro-Bush voting record, McCain looked like an angry poached egg, who wanted to scream at him.

I was relieved by Barack's energy and strength and, yes, passion to win tonight. The last few times I've seen him be interviewed ad hoc he answers with many hestitations and "uh's"... he's choosing his words carefully, and that's good for governing. But for reaching voters and for winning a campaign, he needed to show more passion and energy -- and he did that tonight.

I loved his ability, most of the time, to correct McCain's misleading use of "facts" that aren't facts -- best example, McCain said he couldn't believe that Barack Obama actually voted NOT to give the troops the money they needed.

And Barack came back with that McCain did the same thing: McCain voted against a bill to fund the troops because there was a timeline for withdrawal; and Barack voted against a bill to fund the troops because there was NO timeline for withdrawal, which meant giving Bush a blank check. So they were voting for and against timetables. And of course the eventual bill DID fund the troops. So it's a slander to say that EITHER ONE of them voted against funding the troops. And it was McCain who made the slander.

Another one he made that Obama didn't have the time to correct was when McCain said that Obama voted to raise taxes on people who make $42,000... something his ads say repeatedly in the battle states. (I live in one of them, Pennsylvania.) I did a whole piece on that McCain lie... here's a link.

Another interesting part I thought was when McCain talked for what seemed like 3 hours on his wanting to stand against earmarks (pork barrel spending). Yes, fine and dandy. And this was in answer to how to save money in the government. McCain said earmarks came to 18 billion. Obama agreed that earmarks are not good (though sometimes they can be), but pointed out that the earmarks come to 18 billion, while the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain wants to keep come to 300 billion. McCain's face turned very red and angry during that.

I thought Obama was very good. McCain drove me crazy. Of course, I'm a liberal. But really McCain seems stuck in his behavior, and erratic. And plus I've seen the Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin, and his choosing her as his vice president on what must have been an adrenaline rush hunch -- with the strong possibility given his age and medical history that she could find herself suddenly in the Oval Office -- well, his choosing her ends up being a kind of F--k you to America. Country first, that's a big laugh given that choice, Senator McCain.

I hope people want to vote for Barack Obama who is the future. And he is also right on another point -- when we reclaim our honor in the world stage, that will help us with needed cooperation among allies to make us safer. And he's definitely the man to do that.

And I hope people won't vote for the angry poached egg.

Read more reactions to the first presidential debate from HuffPost bloggers, including Nora Ephron, Bob Shrum, Madeleine Albright, Paul Reiser, Arianna Huffington, Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, and more.

Comments

[ezdaisy]

Chris, Always find something helpful and meaningful in your comments without the rant of so many others. The debate, I thought, clearly went to Obama. Someone needs to tell him, however, he doesn't have to hold up his hand and ask the moderator for permission to speak. It made him appear as a good student waiting for the class show-off to shut up.

[lifeinfullcolor]

I think those who lean towards McCain, were swayed by him. I agree that we the people should start pointing out the parts of the debate that brought out a, get him, an exhale. It's a balancing act, I think Obama can learn from his wife, she's very good at explaining in a way that makes you feel, she gets where you're at, the bar, the raising of the bar. What do you do when one side lies, when one side instead of answering the question, chooses to lie about his or her opponents record? I cringed every time Obama said, that's a lie, interupted McCain with, that's a lie. Instead I would have felt better if he waited and let him go on, like a child caught doing something wrong trying to come up with an excuse. If he waited and then said, John, you know that's not the case, these are the facts, get him on the ropes. When McCain was going on and on about pork barrel spending, lobbyist influence, he could have brought up McCain being a part of the Keating Five. How could he wave the flag for deregulation when he was a central player in the 80's financial debacle.

[TakeTheCanolis]

Good column, Chris. I have one correction.

Obama did, indeed, correct McCain on taxes for the middle class. Obama assured everyone that if you make less than $250k per year, you will get a tax cut.

I was upset when Obama failed to point out that the crisis in Georgia was triggered when Georgia invaded South Ossetia. Obama missed his chance to school the mainstream media -- and John McCain -- and American voters --that the war didn't start with the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Can anyone offer an explanation?

[SOFOROBAMA]

I think that is why Obama's original response (from vacation) was that both countries needed to stand down. But public opinion is that Georgia did no wrong and any venturing into that territory would have been a minefield and above the heads of most Americans who now view the Georgia situation as all Russia's fault.

[TootsieII]

I thought I had heard that Georgia invaded someone which caused Russia to react but I never heard anything else about it. I also thought that it was the result of some interference from someone connected to John McCain. Seems like things have stayed pretty much hush hush about this whole affair.

[LaMees]

I was thinking the same thing in regards to South Ossetia. I am no Putin lover, but the more I read on this"crises", mainly from European or British sources, the more I question Georgia's version of events. Incidentally, they are holding hearings on capital hill in regards to the Georgia question and the true catalyst behind the events this summer.

[dave1111]

McCain said he opposed the president on torture of prisoners. Does this imply that McCain thinks that the president tortured prisoners ?

[jonathanu]

I agree with you on the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. Perhaps you know that a member of John McCain's campaign staff, Randy Scheunemann was until recently a lobbyist for Georgia. Given this fact, I think McCain will take a pro-Georgia position no matter what.

McCain has presented a simplistic, one-sided picture of the conflict, talking about how Russia wanted to control an oil pipeline in Georgia. While oil access was likely a major factor behind Russian interest in the region, the immediate provocation of the war was the Georgian military crack-down on South Ossetia (a region with ethnic ties to the adjoining part of Russia), which then gave Russia an excuse to intervene. It was foolhardy for Georgia to provoke Russia. In my opinion, Russia was just waiting to intervene. This is why restraint on both sides was called for.

Pat Buchanan, of all people, has given some of the most objective analyses of the conflict that I have seen. You can google "Georgia Pat Buchanan".

[jmundstuk]

20th century/21st century are meaningless distinctions. Let's not use them. Let's use specifics: Bellicose; warlike; bi- or unipolar world vs multiple centers; us vs them; etc. Age by itself is not a disqualifier, either. Rigid, unchanging think, however, is.

[krocklin]

It has been said that McCain has two issues: The Surge and he was a POW.

The Surge is just more fantasy from Bush like when Cheney said "Al Queda is on the run" about 3 years ago.

I wish Obama could reveal it to be nothing but a propaganda tool that it is.
Iraq remains the most dangerous country in the world. Electricity and water sources are lower than under Sadam Hussein.
Maybe Obama he should start cataloguing all the facts on the ground there since the media isn't doing it. But then he might be portrayed as "wanting to lose" by the rightwingers.

Of course no miraculous victory is on the horizon - but how do you say all this? I wish he could figure it out. Maybe he's just saying now what he thinks will be acceptable - the skillful politician he is - and then when he's President abandon all the nonsense and get ALL the troops out. If he stays in Afghanistan it will be a quagmire and drag his presidency down.

In other words there are certain positions and words he is employing for purposes of the election, but will abandon them if elected. That's what I think. I hope the Democrats aren't stupid enough to keep troops in the Middle East.

[GuyFawkes]

For me, that's the best response Obama can give: McCain is using 20th century ideas for the 21st century. His time has passed, and the world has moved on.

[Lisette]

McCain came across as arrogant and petty

[feo]

On the "fund the troops" line: Both sides need to address why it has cost (so far) $600 billion to fund the troops. Is each soldier getting paid $15 million a year? Both sides need to tell us where the money has gone. Here in year five of the second most Mickey Mouse war we've ever been in (Grenada being the singlemost Mickey Mouse war), what exactly costs so much?

[jahzilla]

Well,
. . . bribing the various (and ever-changing) sects, government officials and coalition members to provide the illusion (to the less than stellar thinkers here at home) that not only are we "bringing democracy to a sand dune near you", but that oil was never the primary motivation for attacking a country that had no strategic bearing on anything (except for the fact that they are the second largest producer of oil in the world and are surrounded by 5 additional countries that, in symphony, combine to provide 50% of the world's total consumption).
This is just not that hard to grasp, especially if you carry the knowledge that 95% of Bush's cabinet choices (on day one) were not simply involved in determining the direction of the globe's corporate energy policies, they literally wrote the book.

[Pendragon2008]

Actually Feo, that is going to become THE question of the 21st century - where is our money going, who is using it, and what for? Government has nearly zero transparency in that regard, and the concept of "Google for Government" is very nearly unprecedented.

I'd even take that one step further and see if the money could not be tracked in some fashion outside of our banking system, or through the stock markets.

We really do need to understand exactly where our money is going.

The additional factor in Iraq is that the UN had just given them permission in 2000 to start trading oil in Euros:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

And guess what? Iran is too; trading in euros, rials and yen apart from dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

When Iran starts trading in crude oil directly - bye bye dollar.

[oldfart1]

HufPo is high on complacency, and complacency loses.

Obama and HufPo should be asking, where could I have done better? We can't afford to have him lose, and we should be thinking, how do we avoid the worst case?

Obama had all the facts, but he could have made a stronger case. A lot of his material was stale, and carried over from the primaries. He could have said , "the Democratic team is the team America needs", instead of "When I am President" . Cut out the "I" stuff. That was right for the Dem primary, but now he should be playing his best card, and his best card is the Dem card. He should certainly talk about 8 bad Bush years, after 8 Demo years of peace and prosperity.

He could have said, "My opponent is part of the Bush team, and he will still be part of the Bush team, even after Bush is gone." That nails McCain, without offending Reps. Obama should make "Bush team" his second most used phrase.

Obama and his advisors have been busy, but his approach to this debate shows that they still don't understand the difference between the primary and the electoral college. Winning Iowa is not going to change the electoral map, and he needs to get real. Real Demos are proud of their party, and there is no I in Democrat.

[SOFOROBAMA]

I think you're right that he could have been stronger and I bet you'll see him improve in the next one where we move to the domestic issues, which is truly where the differences between the Dems and the Republicans truly stand out.

[omaro]

I know that Monday-morning quarterbacking is and old tradition, of1, and all your ideas about these arguments make sense logically, EXCEPT that they don't jibe with what is known about what sways undecideds when they view debates, and what in particular Obama needed to convey. It's not about the arguments themselves, but about demeanor and non-verbal behaviors, the ability to convey personal qualities that undecideds want to see: indicators of poise, character, leadership and likeability. I think the Obama team knows just what he needed to do, and that he accomplished it nicely, leaving room to get a bit more aggressive in future debates if that would be to his advantage.

[jadeba]

The only people who think McCain handily bested Obama will be his base - because they are angry poached eggs, too.

[SOFOROBAMA]

I saw one poll where Republicans said McCain won 90 - 10 and Democrats said Obama won 93 - 7. The people that matter in that case are Independents, who also gave it to Obama. That's good news. We need to do our best to spread that word because it's the water cooler talk that will really shape public opinion of who won among those that didn't even watch.

[Riven]

Remember when we were kids how hard it was to look at Mom when she caught us doing something really, really wrong and she said, "Look at me"? That's what I kept thinking last night as I watched John McCain's inability to meet Barack Obama's eyes. McCain's body language conveyed both knowledge of wrongdoing and shame at such behavior. There is honor in the old man yet, but it is not strong enough to overcome the twin temptations of power and glory.

I wonder that no one has written very much about the fact that the Vietcong broke McCain and forced him to denounce his country. (Kindness and deference, I suppose, in a race where McCain's side has consistently been mean and rude.) The pressures of the presidential campaign have broken McCain anew and forced him to renounce his core decency. The same pressures, by contrast, have only revealed more and more of Obama's estimable qualities. Obama was able to look at McCain during the debate because his treatment of his opponent has not been base and vile. Those of us who keep advising Obama to go on the angry attack should be grateful he has remained true to his principles, for his steadfast good conduct will very likely take him all the way to the White House.

[BuckeyeGal]

What I saw last night.
JM -- manchurian candidate (broken in captivity, don't let us forget it, John).
BO -- next POTUS.

[jahzilla]

I believe that what we saw in McCain's demeanor was perceived as anger, but was actually footed in fear. . . and not any form of strength (as the wing-nut commentators on the right have spun it).

McCain's fear is palpable and well placed. He stood up there knowing his only arguments were not only based on lies and tired soundbites, but he and he alone knows that the image (spin) he has been led to believe about himself, that of "Maverick", jibes entirely with positions of (so called) independence he once took.

McCain's inability to look Obama in the eye speaks volumes within his own embarrassing understanding of just what a fraud he has morphed into in order to sway a base that functions from a position of "what it takes to win a football game" . . . and not to govern as a world leader.

No, I think what we saw in McCain's demeanor was resentment for the position he has allowed himself to be placed in. Surely he considers himself to be above the vile, socio-pathetic loser Bush . . . the man who used the very same dirty tricks on him in 2000, but just as sure, you can bet that McCain knows just what a tool he himself has become in believing he has to appear play by those same rules of engagement.

What we saw last night, is a broken and now very dangerous man.
Did I mention Sarah Palin yet?

[Sepiastar]

@mmmd

Yes, that is the key for Obama. Senator McCain's "20th century policies" being outdated and ineffective is the mantra he needs to state in every debate, speech, question, etc he has from now until the election. He needs to repeatedly state Senator McCain wants to solve America's problems with 20th century policies. We are in a new age and it's time for the country to progressively transform our global policies to benefit the US!!

[ConnieInCleveland]

Barack Obama should carry himself exactly how he did. Don't let the pundits mislead him into being angry. They would just change their talking points to "Angry Black Man"! The same pundits who spun us into a war of aggression using lies and fixed facts are now the ones spinning for John McCain!

It's time to hold the talking heads accountable for spinning! John McCain and Sarah Palin are a "Bridge to no where". We need to move forward with leadership we can believe!